i've no problem with people liking it, but randall munroe is a lazy, complacent asshole. and that is my opinion about things.

first 200 strips are good, though"

"XKCD is pretty hit-or-miss with me. I really like the strips where he kind of pokes fun at his own interests, but in some of the others I just feel like he's trying to show off things he knows or believes in. Too much reliance on the "smart/right" character revealing something to the more "common" person, who's then like "huh, guess I was dumb". "

"Well it can't be helped that the kid has only been alive for 12 years or so, and hasn't even had a regular education! I mean, he was practically raised by hippies. It's not his fault for his lack of knowledge!"

"the only thing xkcd is good for is getting you to google shit you don't care about"

"I used to utterly loathe the comic with a burning passion; it was so offensively mediocre that I could spend hours extolling the sins of individual strips and the comic as a whole; I could froth endlessly about exactly WHY putting a heart under a radical was such trite garbage and why any individual should feel bad about appreciating it; I would eagerly await new comics simply so that I could be angry at them and wax vitriolic. Now though, I simply can't muster the energy or the desire. It's been bad in exactly the same way for so long that there's no point in it anymore. All the punchlines are the same. All the strips are the same. There are three or four premises that Munroe has, and he's realized that people will eat them up forever and there's no reason for him to ever try new things. So he doesn't! I would have a difficult time deciding if "complacency" or "mediocrity" would be the one word I'd use to sum up the entire comic, but either one would fit."

And my personal favourite:
"Also, just because one can draw a comic in 5 minutes doesn't mean that should be the update rate. Otherwise all we'd get is random thoughts and forced jokes."

I really. really. really. love this.

And on that note, I wish you all a very merry christmas. Oh wait, something's different--

It's this:

As we all know, Randall Munroe makes his income without the use of ads, and so relies entirely on Merchandizing income. And as usual, he's relying on nostalgia [hey remember that bobcat comic guys? remember how you loved it 3 years ago?] to sell stuff.

I won't comment any more on this fact. That's why you guys are here <3
-Ravenzomg <3 <3 <3

[The hated raven also wanted me to point out that the poster went down in price from $150 to like $95. Raven says this is only $35 more than it should be; in my estimation it is actually $200 more than it should be. -Ed.]

Damn, even Rob's mini-reviews are more insightful than that. Who cares what some random-ass forum thinks about xkcd.

Re: xkcd store - I actually laughed when the banner was just lots of faces of Jimbo Wales. Still doesn't cancel out the fact that Randy is probably running out of money, so he has to pimp his store extra hard.

of all the possible reasons for being too lazy to actually write a review, "secretly liking the comic" is a pretty weak one. much more plausible is "lazy beyond all mortal reckoning," which is nearly always the reason something is half-assed on here.

a strawman is based on misrepresenting an opponents argument to be able to attack it. now please point out where that occured? oh right, it didn't, because i never once misrepresented anything that was said too me.

"The guy down the hall who looks over your shoulder is fairly sure, Rob."

actually, one of my many neuroses is that i will never sit somewhere to read, write, or use a computer where reading over my shoulder is possible. usually I try to avoid the possibility of anyone ever being behind me when I sit down but this is not always practical (eg at restaurants) so I just choose the seat where I can see most of the things that are happening.

2:23, 2:24, 2:26 (do you often lose your cool when you're sinking so hard?), you misrepresented your opponent's argument by asserting that it "refused to admit" that sometimes xkcd is "not actually that bad". HTH.

i don't hide my screen, I keep my back to the wall, because the idea of people approaching me from behind anxiety-inducing. i have written every post on here since, eh, september of last year or so sitting in a corner where there is no actual physical space to stand behind me.

even to the third party reading your posts, rob, "I've written everything I've posted from the corner making sure I never get up and with my screen perfectly positioned so no-one else can see it" sounds implausible. we have to assume:(1) corners are always available where you are;(2) you are always able to fit in one;(3) despite the extent of neurosis you're still sufficiently grounded in reality that you're arranging your environment adequately.

it's the sort of contrived HAHAGEEKSARESOQUIRKY set-up you'd see presented through Sheldon on "The Big Bang Theory" or, well, in an xkcd comic.

trgardless. at no point did i missrepresent robs argument, i said that refusing to admit that something is good is sad, this has nothing to do with rob, as he would first have to actually think that randy puts out good commics every once in a while

So you've gone from "always trying to sit where I think either no-one will be able to see me or I can see everyone" to "always installing myself perfectly in corners" to "well i'm in a house so it's private". Any more terms you'd like to vary or are you sticking with "I'm always hidden in a corner in my house"?

i don't think i even made an argument, so i'm not sure how anyone is misrepresenting it.

well, i made the argument that i'm neurotic and that someone reading over my shoulder is pretty much impossible due to the physics of where i sit when i write, but no one misrepresented that one, they just assumed i wrote at like coffee houses or some shit.

btw though an anxiety disorder is not the same thing as a disorder where you are divorced from reality.

where have i contradicted? or are you trying to play off the part where i was right as a simple "nu-uh".

and excuse me for not knowing robs history, i was unaware he had said anything good about randy in the past, and hey, would you look at that, rob never actually refuted my argument that randy puts good content out every once in a while, instead he had said it was less likely.

In the context of trying to "sit somewhere to read, write, or use a computer", your first example was a restaurant.

An anxiety disorder does tend to involve being divorced from reality: the thoughts creating the anxiety tend to be a paranoid or otherwise excessively negative interpretation of what's going on or may happen. It's also quite normal for someone suffering an anxiety disorder with antisocial elements to think that their behaviour is shielding them from the observations of others and making them blend in when in fact their pecadillos make them stand out a mile.

But now I'm just being mean by prodding the patient, and I was taught not to do that, so I'll leave it there.

" So you've gone from "always trying to sit where I think either no-one will be able to see me or I can see everyone" to "always installing myself perfectly in corners" to "well i'm in a house so it's private". Any more terms you'd like to vary or are you sticking with "I'm always hidden in a corner in my house"?"

let's go over the history of what I said, shall we?

first claim: "i will never sit somewhere to read, write, or use a computer where reading over my shoulder is possible." this is still true, and has remained so throughout this conversation. at no point when reading/writing/using a copmuter will I sit in such a way that it is possible for someone to read over my shoulder.

second claim, which I suspect is the source of your confusion: "usually I try to avoid the possibility of anyone ever being behind me when I sit down but this is not always practical." this was referring to the more general case of where I choose to sit when I'm not reading/writing/using a computer. I still prefer corners and walls but I am less prone to anxiety.

third claim (ignoring the clarification in that post): "i have written every post on here since, eh, september of last year or so sitting in a corner." note the singular corner. i have written them all from the same corner. there may be one or two exceptions where I have used another corner, of course, but none of them were in public places. the emphasis is, as it has always been, on the fact that humans could not possibly be behind me to read what I am doing when I write.

fourth claim: "are you familiar with the concept of a house?" this is just clarifying that the corner I was referring to was the same corner the whole time.

not sure why you seem to think I am writing in public places or whatever, but if that's what makes you happy i'm not going to argue

"An anxiety disorder does tend to involve being divorced from reality: the thoughts creating the anxiety tend to be a paranoid or otherwise excessively negative interpretation of what's going on or may happen. "

I'm not going to whip out my cock and prove my credentials, but I certainly do know what an anxiety disorder is from my day to day work.

Briefly, anxiety isn't (just) a collection of physical symptoms - it's a psychological state. If "there aren't thoughts creating the anxiety" then it's by definition not anxiety. You may not be entirely aware of those thoughts, particularly after the event, but something either is creating or has created them.

There may be certain stimuli associated with emotional trauma where one could argue that thought is barely taking place - for example, someone might panic when the sun comes out because they were frequently abused as a child by Uncle Joe and Uncle Joe always came to visit on sunny days. But that's far more basic (if disabling) than "I don't want someone looking over my shoulder and seeing what I'm doing".

I do understand, however, that it's really hard to admit that there are thought processes breeding that anxiety and that you have to think different to get out of that worry cycle. So many anxious people insist to themselves and others that it's something out of their control. It doesn't help that some doctors prefer administering medicine to prescribing behavioural therapy.

your day to day work being intro to psych class? it's great to see undergrads taking such a keen interest in psychology, i just wish they didn't suddenly think they understood fuck-all about the human mind because they flipped ahead in their coursebook to the interesting bits

anyway i'm off to bed, have fun making up credentials that sound plausible. i'm sure you've had some time to think of something by now. i suggest "researcher" or something, it's pretty generic and doesn't really imply very much

No, I'm a statistician by trade who has taken on one unexpected role over the past couple of years of reviewing medical papers and giving advice on use and abuse of statistics. I'm physically next to one of the London research schools - if I tell you that their specialisation is neurology, I'm sure you can find where I'm sitting within a square mile or two.

I guess I would have got more Internet e-points if I'd pretended to be one of the people I work with. Oh well.

"....I guess I would have got more Internet e-points if I'd pretended to be one of the people I work with. Oh well....."

Statistically speaking, your command of the Queen's English leaves me no choice but to pronounce that you would be unable to 'pretend' to be one of the people with whom you work. At least not in a statistically significant manner within an error range approximately plus or minus five percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Rob how dare you not write in public so that everyone in public can see that you are a writer who writes things that a writer would write and therefor the public should admire your writing skills by virtue of you writing in public ( as all good writers write, which is to say in public)!

That's basically what I'm getting out of the argument, but I am basically the least intelligent member of the human race/most intelligent member of the Aves class (except for crows =[ ).

Not having a smartphone and never using my laptop for anything but tedious group econometric assignments or those few LAN parties I experimented with back in university (which is to say back in June actually), I can quite safely say that I have typed every single reply and review to this blog in a room where if someone were to stand behind me reading over my shoulder, they would be inside a functioning furnace. And honestly finding out the self-indulgent garbage I write is not worth that much effort.

Anyone else notice how Randall changed the wording of the ad for his store from "I promise not to ship you a bobcat, probably" to "I promise not to ship you any bobcats this year"? As though people thinking he would actually ship them a bobcat was a real concern?

ALTF, you were outed in the last thread as a troll who just reposts from the chans. You remind me more than ever of Joe Pasquale. While his worn-out party trick is a squeaky voice, yours is a ridiculous style of English.

At least Rob dared to leave character above and reveal some of himself - it was almost touching, though I'm sure he'll return to deny it ever happened! - but you can't do that, can you?

i have always been fairly open about the fact that i am basically a grab bag of random disorders. i assume mostly personality disorders but i mean, acting like i know what precisely is wrong with me would imply that there is easy access to affordable medical care in this country

ALTF, this looks like the same old crap but on a different site: quirky, exaggerated accounts of the mundane; pasting random shit from others in an attempt to sound smart. The Internet was already full of this in 1996, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve today. And you're building the persona of.. hmm.. a Laotian midwife and/or the rich guy he's married to?

You're like a kid who craps every day in the local park: I would ignore you except for the steaming pile you leave in my path every so often.

ALTF, I'm not sure why you're offering pictures of yourself in a bikini. I'm neither a pimp nor do I represent a modelling agency specialising in swimwear for boyish Asians. Even if I did, I'm not sure you'd make much of a career of it - the Far East is swimming in them, as it were. But whenever supply exceeds demand it's all about how low you can go, innit?

'my my my!' megan squealed 'that is at least two inches now, randy!'.'I know! These new exercises are really good.' he replied happily 'very soon they will accept me at the working man's club!'.

Life was simple for Randall and Megan, they lived a humble lifestyle, in a small shack in Tibet.

Every morning Randall would tend the crops and feed the cows outside. In exchange for his farming prowess Megan had let him stay, and, when the need arose, she would feed him with her ample breasts.

One day in June Megan was worried. During her nightly fondling she had found a small lump in lefty. Too scared to tell Randall, for fear he would leave her, she investigated on Wikipedia.

The article read 'If you find lumps [1] in your breasts [2] you have [sic] cancer and will never milk again [3]'

'GOOMH WIKI!' she cried. She knew she had no choice but to tell Randall, for the daily bosom rituals he conducted would be sure to uncover her cancerous secret, and honesty was just as important as milk as foundations of their relationship.

'Randall...I need to talk to you' she said, nervously.'Not now!' he exclaimed angrily 'How many times have I told you not to talk while I am feeding? You may only talk if you impersonate my mother!'

'Randall...I'm sorry, I think you need to stop feeding...I have something to tell you, it's urgent' she replied.

'What can be more important than milk, Megan?'

'I have cancer' she said, holding back tears.

'Oh god, Megan... Don't worry, don't worry. I have planned for this. I will make a post on my blog...'

Apologies Rob.I misspelled the great Mapplethorpe's name in my haste to retort at 12:00 PM, earlier.There is no excuse and I will willingly accept my most deserved punishment for such a heinous transgression.Though my having eaten maple walnut ice cream for tea last night might have influenced me.

"Well it can't be helped that the kid has only been alive for 12 years or so, and hasn't even had a regular education! I mean, he was practically raised by hippies. It's not his fault for his lack of knowledge!"

I just want to point out that this quote has been taken way out of context.

I had forgotten all abut http://www.isxkcdshittytoday.com/. I used to always send people there when they said 'omg have you seen xkcd today omg lol so witty.' 'Well,' I would say. 'let's see what oracle says. and look. the real truth rhymes with witty, I spose.' Anyway, I had forgotten it but I just remembered it and, yeah.

"Scotland Yard has confirmed it is looking into a complaint that Mr Cameron broke the law by allegedly having sex in his Whitehall office."

If I were his lawyer, I would point out that using a government office for having sex with his secretary was far less ruinous for Britain than how he might otherwise have been using it. While Cameron was harmlessly fucking his secretary, the rest of the cabinet were probably hatching schemes to make us all line up and be fingerprinted. Put it this way: would you rather he was shafting his secretary, or the nation? We got off lightly.

I would go further: I would say that screwing his secretary is his main achievement since taking office, and one of the things that sets him apart from monomaniacs and cyborgs like Blair, Brown and Straw. Blair would no more fuck his secretary than he would read a novel. Why? Because he’s a lunatic and a freak, with no more sense of proportion than a Saudi cleric. Brute that he is, Cameron is one of the few members of the establishment who is still recognisably earthling.

"I’m the one who acted stupidly," he said. What was stupid about it? It was one of the few things he has done recently of which sane people might approve. You vote to abolish Habeas Corpus and the Magna Carta, then you apologise for screwing your secretary? Seriously, what’s wrong with everyone on that island? Besides which, to describe it as "stupid" is insulting to the woman, you great oaf.

Incidentally, trivia question: how many jags does "two-jags" own? He owns one jag (second hand). If he were French or Italian he could use his ministerial car to buy milk, visit his whippets, or whatever else he does with his wretched life. But because he was scrupulous, on that occasion, about the difference between government property and private property, he got jumped on.* And the same people who call him two-jags now bitch about him getting his end away in Whitehall.

I think he comes out of these scandals rather well. I still hope to see him hang, however. Cunt. Innit?

Also, your comments are like XKCD: Painful to read and difficult to avoid.

Before you reply: "you don't have to read xkcdsucks comments" see also "you don't have to read xkcd"

Congratulations, you've brought the same shit we all wish to escape here, with even less intelligence. I'm not even mad, just pointing out the obvious so you can riff off it and gloat in your glorious fail.

30 years? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Why would you bother getting frozen for only 30 years. It's not going to be that different in 30 years. Kurzweil is an idiot. We've had no significant new technologies in the last 30 years except for the ONE Randall highlights in this strip (or maybe TWO if you count internet and cellphones separately, in which case you don't get to count smartphones again, or give Alexander Graham Bell credit for a revolutionary breakthrough).

Face it Randall, computers are faster than ever, but we're in the middle of decades of technological stagnation. At some point there will be a bunch of rapid technological innovation again, but I'm not sure we'll be there in 30 years. Life in the 1960s wasn't that much different than now. On the other hand, life in the 1910s was way different; most people didn't have access to electric lights, cars, telephones or airplanes, and penicillin, TV, nukes, spaceflight, and computers weren't even invented. An Iphone II GS isn't a revolutionary innovation on par with the electric light.

In America, a rape victim must be a free human - with your property you may do as you will. So it was impossible under US law or the law of any slave-owning states for a slave to be legally raped: there are zero records of a slaveowner being charged with rape of one of the slaves.

The more you know.

In England, rape still requires penile penetration. It is thus impossible under English law for women to be rapists, "statutory" or otherwise.

Apologies for being truant yesterday. I went to see the Occupy International Falls demonstration - there were four people. Two hirsute Flower Children who had made a wrong turn at Haight-Ashbury lo those many years ago; a rather mad adolescent and some woman hoisting a placard which read, "Eat The Rich".

"Listen, girlfriend, I do not think that would be a good idea. A Hilton Skin-Taco might have its charms as an amuse-bouche, but Trump tartare is absolutely horrid."

Upon further reflection, I am hurt that you could not distinguish my 'adaptions' of the dross of that utter cunt Hutton from those of another.After all, I chose Hutton as he is a compatriot of yours and surely he must be known to you and The Kitten. He is justfiably the most famous son of High Wycombe (next to that Spasticus Autisticus guy, Disraeli, Dusty Springfield and a few others). He and his brother Barry are co-conspirators with Noreen for christ's sake!Sheesh!

That serendipitous academic convergence of ideas you posted is clearly about Prescott, and you did indeed fail to remove the reference to 'two-jags'. However, the idea of that jowly, organically-grown potato bending his secretary over the desk is even more repugnant than Cameron's perma-smug face, so you are forgiven.

Enquiring scholars will note that the next section categorises Anon's offence as "Assault by penetration" and that the offence carries the same potential prison term, "life", which is interpreted as what feels like a lifetime in dull, rainy England, i.e. about 13 years. This offence, unlike "rape":

(a) Demands evidence that the penetration is "sexual". So a dildo per anum for mere sadistic amusement would not even be "assault by penetration";

(b) Omits the mouth as a potential orifice. So even the most sexually gratifying insertion of the afore mentioned unwashed dildo in ALTF's unwashed mouth would be neither rape nor assault by penetration.

Dearest Kitten(s),I think if you click on the ALTF Avatar of the comment placed December 12, 2011 at 6:57 AM you will understand why I responded to Ann with, "No I didn't", and them followed with, "I am hurt that you (Ann) could not distinguish my 'adaptions' of the dross of that utter cunt Hutton from those of another."

Perhaps I am still being too opaque - that comment of December 12, 2011 at 6:57 AM was from a doppelganger ya cunt!

Now they're saying Buddy has an opposite-sex beau!He, being a marine bird and separated from his love, is probably abiding the old mariner credo of, 'Any port in a storm'. That, or he is taking the sage advice of Stephen Stills.

I find it sad that he lacks the readership anywhere, and thus thrusts his ineffectual emanations so frequently here; The consuming of which being only a bit more pathetic than the initial attention starved hijacking itself.

It's clear his pretentiousness only thinly masks the loneliness. If not for the foulness, one would almost feel pity.

Like all angry, impotent geeks, he has a dream to kill everyone who ever criticised/wronged/got more girls than he did. In fact, this is his only aim. He regards this murderous revenge as working to his full potential.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.